Saturday, December 17, 2016

Paleo-Orthodoxy: The Gnostic Jesus

Many
fringe theorists and adversaries of Christian orthodoxy point to the
Nag Hammadi texts as proof that the Jesus of Christianity is not the
Jesus of history. These Nag Hammadi texts were produced during the
centuries after Christ. Many of these texts were produced well after
the canonical scriptures were clearly established. These texts
present a view of Christ that does not line up with the teachings of
early Christianity nor of the historically verifiable gospels. As a
result these accounts were considered heretical, and many of the
Church Fathers wrote against them and in favor of orthodoxy and the
received canon. These so-called “gospels” are used by fringe
theorists to establish the lost years of Jesus and an alternative to
the Jesus of orthodoxy. They argue that these writings prove
Christianity was a diverse movement with competing and equally
legitimate stories of the life and teachings of Christ. They will
quote from such Gnostic texts as the Gospel of Thomas, the
Gospel of Philip, the Dialogue of the Savior, the
Gospel of the Egyptians, and other such material.

The
truth of the matter is that most of what was discovered in these
texts is not relevant to early Christianity outside the realm of
discussing heresies. They do not reveal any credible historical
details, but rather reveal the teachings of various pagan sects
(Gnosticism is pagan in origin) that for a time falsely used the
names of the apostles in their writings in an effort to compete with
orthodox Christianity. The problems with taking these “lost
gospels” as valid historical sources is obvious. Scholarly
consensus places these texts in the 2nd and 3rd
centuries A.D., nearly 100 years after the life and ministry of
Christ. Some fringe theorists will attempt to place the Gospel of
Thomas before the writing of the canonical Gospels, but there is
literally no credible historical evidence to support such a
contention. Others posit the existence of a document known as Q as
having preceded the canonical Gospels and having been the source for
the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke. It must be noted that
there is no evidence for the existence of such a document, and it is
simply a rhetorical device used by some researchers. The Gospel of
Thomas is dated at 140 A.D. at
the earliest. This is much later than the canonical Gospels which
were written within the generation of Jesus' earthly lifetime. In
fact, there is ample evidence that the Gnostic texts relied on
material taken from the canonical Gospels. What does all this mean?
It means that the Gnostic texts are not alternative histories of the
life and teachings of Jesus, but are writings of various dissidents
who broke away from the established church to start cults of their
own making, based on pagan philosophies placed in the mouth of Jesus
and His apostles. In short, they are not histories nor gospels, but
lies.

These Gnostic texts present
a strange world filled with mystics and magicians, each proclaiming
an extremely dualistic universe, wherein those who wish to be freed
from the confines of an evil material world must go through secret
initiations and gain the hidden gnosis (knowledge). This is at opposition to the Jesus we find in the canonical Gospels who proclaimed his message openly.

The Church
Fathers, many of whom knew the apostles or were students of those who
did, wrote against these various Gnostic cults. They clearly exposed
the teachings of the Gnostics as heresy. Examples are:

Gnostics
rejected the very fact of Jesus being a physical human being, since
they viewed all matter as evil. This also means he did not really
suffer death on the cross.

“The
unbelieving say that he only seemed to suffer.”- Irenaeus

“How
does anyone benefit me if he praises me, but blasphemes my Lord- not
confessing that he was possessed of a body?”- Ignatius

“There
are some who maintain that even Jesus himself appeared only as a
spiritual Being, and not in the flesh.”- Justin
Martyr

“They
deny that the Son assumed anything material. For, according to them,
matter is indeed incapable of salvation.”- Irenaeus

Gnostics
rejected the Eucharist, which Jesus established.

“They
abstain from the Eucharist, and from prayer, because they do not
confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus
Christ...Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God (the
Eucharist), incur death.”- Ignatius

Some Gnostics
could be given to debauchery and were active in paganism.

“At
every pagan festival celebrated in honor of the idols, these men are
the first to assemble...Some of them do not even keep away from that
bloody spectacle that is hateful to both God and men, in which
gladiators fight with wild beasts or fight each other in single
combat.”- Irenaeus

“So
unbridled is t heir madness, that they declare they have in their
power all things that are irreligious and ungodly. And they are at
liberty to practice them. For they maintain that things are evil or
good simply because of human opinion.”- Irenaeus

While
the Gnostics claimed to be heirs of the apostles, early Christians
knew better.

“When
the sacred band of the apostles had in various ways completed their
lives' work, and when the next generation of men had passed away (to
whom it had been vouchsafed to personally hear the divine wisdom),
then did the confederacy of godless error takes its rise through the
treachery of false teachers. For upon seeing that none of the
apostles were living any longer, they at length attempted with bare
and uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching
knowledge falsely so called.”- Hippolytus

Douglas
Groothuis1,
writing for the Christian Research Journal
has the following to say regarding these texts:

“Historicity
is related to trustworthiness. If a document is historically
reliable, it is trustworthy as objectively true; there is good reason
to believe that what it affirms essentially fits what is the case. It
is faithful to fact. Historical reliability can be divided into three
basic categories: integrity, authenticity, and veracity. Integrityconcerns
the preservation of the writing through history. Do we have reason to
believe the text as it now reads is essentially the same as when it
was first written? Or has substantial corruption taken place through
distortion, additions, or subtractions? The New Testament has been
preserved in thousands of diverse and ancient manuscripts which
enable us to reconstruct the original documents with a high degree of
certainty.”2

If
we consider the fact that the canonical Gospels do pass the tests for
historical reliability as Dr. Groothius notes, while the Gnostic
texts do not, the logical and reasonable thing to do is reject the
Gnostic writings. They provide nothing of value.

1Professor
of Philosophy at Denver Seminary. Author of thirteen books on
philosophy and theology.